Every Republican candidate would look to Israeli government positions as a barometer by which to gauge support. This is the collective point of divergence from the Obama administration.

In a November 12th interview with The Algemeiner, ADL national chairman Abraham
Foxman declared that when it comes to positions on Israel, “With the exception
of Ron Paul, there is not much difference between the parties.”

I cannot
imagine how he arrived at this conclusion, as in fact, nothing could be further
from the truth.

It is correct that in the United States, due to
overwhelming popularity among the general populace, Israel as a political issue
stands alone. Candidates take sides on every issue, from abortion to gay rights,
to the size of government and deficit reduction. However when it comes to
Israel, a mainstream American politician that openly champions an anti-Israel
stance more than likely renders himself unelectable.

In order to bypass
this inconvenience, many politicians with divergent views on sticky Israeli
issues have attempted to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel by formulating
their own definitions on what is in Israel’s best interests. If Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted to run for Congress, he would first
proclaim his great love for the Jewish State and then go on to explain that in
his well-considered opinion it is in Israel’s best interest to be
nuked.

This is precisely the collective point of Republican divergence
from Obama administration positions on Israel. Every single candidate, including
Ron Paul (with the exception of his opinion on aid) would look to Israeli
government positions as the guide to its interests and for use as a barometer by
which to gauge support.

While this is the case, for the sake of clarity
and definitive evaluation, I set out to rank the Republican candidates purely in
order of “how good they would be for Israel.” Some of their positions on various
intricacies have yet to be clarified, and not all relevant information was
available to me at the time of publication. As the primary process progresses I
suspect that this list will need to be tweaked, but for now, here is my
assessment from worst to best:

8. Ron Paul

Paul’s positions on Israel have been
almost uniformly derided. While claiming to be non-interventionist on the issue,
he has routinely adopted Arab talking points on Israel, even comparing Gaza to
“a concentration camp.” His isolationist mantra may appeal to fiscal
conservatives, but in the real world its implementation would create a global
power vacuum that would likely be filled by supporters of Israel’s
enemies.

7. Jon Huntsman

Although highly critical of Obama administration
policies toward Israel, in a recent National Review article, he explained the
unilateral Palestinian bid for statehood, saying that “when Israel lost
confidence in its ally (the United States), their position understandably
hardened. This led to the Palestinian Authority also losing hope in the peace
process.” While sympathetic, Huntsman blames PA actions on Israeli positions,
representing a fundamental misunderstanding of Israel’s predicament.

6.
Herman Cain

At a recent New York fundraiser I heard Herman Cain firmly proclaim:
“If you’re messing with Israel you’re messing with the USA.” While his
sentiments seem to be in the right place, his lack of experience and knowledge
of the intricacies may mean that he will leave major decisions in the hands of
others, which could prove risky for Israel. This unfamiliarity was demonstrated
when he was recently asked by Fox News host Chris Wallace about the Palestinian
Arab “right of return” claim, to which he responded, “Yes, they should have a
right to come back if that is a decision that Israel wants to make.”

5.
Rick Perry

At a press conference in New York and in an earlier Jerusalem Post
column, Perry outlined his positions on Israel. He strongly opposed the
Obama-induced settlement freeze and called on Palestinian Arab leaders to
“publicly affirm Israel’s right to exist, and to exist as a Jewish state.” Like
Romney, Perry favors a “negotiated settlement,” and in the absence of Arab
compliance, would refrain from placing the onus of the blame on
Israel.

4. Mitt Romney

Famously accusing President Obama of “throwing
Israel under the bus” in his book No Apology Romney shows sympathy for and
understanding of Israel’s challenges. While still favoring and pledging to
support a negotiated two-state settlement, based on a position paper posted on
his website and his comments in a recent National Review Online article, he
would allow Israel to take the lead on security issues and he would fight
against unilateral Arab actions and anti-Semitic attacks on the state. At
last Tuesday’s televised foreign policy debate Romney was the first candidate to
pledge that his first foreign trip as president would be to Israel. His policies
would likely be most similar to those of George W. Bush.

3. Newt Gingrich

“No country can be expected to conduct peace negotiations with a terrorist
organization, or with a Palestinian governmental Authority that joins forces
with such a terrorist organization,” declared Gingrich at a Republican Jewish
Coalition event. Like many of the other candidates, he supports the
status of Jerusalem as the “undivided capital of the Jewish state.” Widely
viewed as the smartest candidate, his views translate into nuanced and
comprehensive pro-Israel policy.

2. Michele Bachmann

A video posted on
Bachmann’s website demonstrates a notable understanding on Middle East issues.
Her first trip to the Holy Land was in 1974, when, at age 17, she joined a group
of Minnesota teens to spend a summer in Israel. At a recent dinner for the
Zionist Organization of America she said, “If I am president, not one inch of
Israel will ever be on the chopping block,” uniquely expressing the view that
any territorial concessions are dangerous for Israel.

1. Rick Santorum

In
a recent off-the-cuff campaign trail interview, Santorum broke ranks when he
schooled a reporter on Israeli history. Regarding development in the territories
of Judea and Samaria, he said: “The bottom line is that that is legitimately
Israeli country. And they have a right to do within their country just
like we have a right to do within our country.” He also denied the
existence of “Palestinians” as a distinct people, thus dismissing calls for the
establishment of another hostile Arab state on Israel’s border. He did not
clarify what the legal status of West Bank Arabs should be.

The writer is
the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at
defune@gjcf.com.

Your comment must be approved by a moderator before being published on JPost.com.
Disqus users can post comments automatically.

Comments must adhere to our Talkback policy. If you believe that a comment has breached the Talkback policy, please press the flag icon to bring it to the attention of our moderation team.